Bindmans drawn into London riots row

King’s Cross firm Bindmans has been recommended by a left-wing blog as the firm of choice for those arrested in relation to London riots.

Twitter feed @thethirdestate published Bindmans’ phone number yesterday, advising anyone “nicked” near the scene of the riots to contact the firm, which specialises in public law, human rights and civil liberties.

The blog stated: “For anyone heading to places where riots are: 1) Mask up. Properly, not just a hood. 2) Bindmans solicitors if you get nicked: 02078334433.”

A spokesperson for The Third Estate said it had recommended Bindmans because “they are good and experienced with public order in protest, but also have offered to have their details circulated”.

However, a spokesperson from Bindmans said: “It’s come to our attention that a leaflet headed ’Don’t panic, don’t talk’ has been circulated. We did not draft, see, approve or circulate such a leaflet, nor did we agree to the inclusion of our contact details in it, nor have we sent out or authorised any Tweets or blog postings in connection with the recent disturbances.”

The 16-partner firm recently represented more than 100 people faced with prosecution over the UK Uncut tax protests and the occupation of luxury retailer Fortnum & Mason in March.

Other regular clients include Amnesty International, the Bar Council, Brian Paddick, David Blunkett MP, ITN, the Law Society of England and Wales and the National Union of Journalists.

Bindmans partner Tamsin Allen has also been in the spotlight recently, representing former deputy prime minister John Prescott and Chris Bryant MP in a judicial review of the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the phone hacking scandal (23 May 2011).

Via Twitter postings The Third Estate has also listed London firms Hodge Jones & Allen and Birnberg Peirce & Partners as firms whose telephone numbers rioters should carry with them.

Yes this is “so bad”. I believe it is customary to fix up up a conference with yer brief after rather than prior to the commission of a crime. I suggest Bindmans champions of the “poor oppressed backberry toting anarchist” should publicy dissociate themselves.

“Force of the Law | 9-Aug-2011 1:49 pm
Utterly, utterly crass. And handing out tips on covering up? What next, reminding rapists to wear condoms?”
No, its not Bindmans handing out tips, its some blogger who also recommends Bindmans if they get caught.

There was a time when protestors were proud to be seen protesting for their cause. Now it’s just a bunch of cowardly mommy’s boys and girls who like to cause damage to everything for the sake if it… and then go screaming like a baby when the nasty policemen respond with force.

All these tough guys should head over to Libya, Egypt or Syria and witness people fighting for a real cause. They’d last about 5 seconds (and they wouldn’t even get a new pair of trainers out of it).

Jim, surely the money involved comes from flogging looted watches and phones down the pub? There must be something somewhere about being paid from the proceeds of crime…., or do these people qualify for Legal Aid?

What kind of firm would represent these people! But then I guess soulless litigators defend murderers, rapists, thugs and burgulars all the time and don’t lose any sleep over it.
AI you can talk all about how people are entitled to whatever, but do you really think that a fair trial is what drives lawyers to defend these people?? Or it might be because they money they make out of it.

Hang on a minute, has everyone forgotten that in the UK people are innocent until proven guilty?!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m of the view that often there is no smoke without fire hence I’m not a criminal lawyer! However, what about the situation where a young person was in the vicinity of the rioters, take Piccadilly Gardens for example, but had nothing to do with the riots and was just shopping (after all it is the summer holidays). If that young person were to be arrested it would not be fair if they could not have legal representation to prove their innocence.

Or are you suggesting that young person+in a city centre+at the time of the riot = automatic guilt?! What sort of impression would that give to law abiding young people with a good future ahead of them?

“@Barry | 9-Aug-2011 12:58 pm
“I think it’s outrageous that solicitors should find themselves acting for suspected criminals. They should be struck off forthwith!”
Barry – Key word in your comment is ‘suspected’ ie innocent until proven guilty. Surely you are not suggesting every criminal and civil rights lawyer should be struck off?”

I’m fairly sure that @Barry was demonstrating what’s commonly known as sarcasm there…it was funny.

I think we’re in danger of straying off the point here. Yes, criminal suspects are entitled to representation, but there’s a whole world of difference between (1) agreeing to represent a young lad who’s been arrested for rioting and (2) doing nothing to distance yourself from your firm name being put forward alongside incitements to violence.

I loved the statement that the ‘key word’ was ‘suspected’. I always thought that convicted criminals were also legitimately entitled to legal representation. Might be wrong though, with criminal apellants always having to represent themselves in court.

Who are these people who did not understand Barry’s post to be ironic?
And Grace, the point is that it is the yobs who are going out to loot, in response to the email/twitter invitation, who are being issued with the law firm’s phone number – not innocent young people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless, of course, such innocent bystander happens to stumble across a looter’s dropped blackberry at the moment they are being inappropriately arrested…

“However, a spokesperson from Bindmans said: “It’s come to our attention that a leaflet headed ’Don’t panic, don’t talk’ has been circulated. We did not draft, see, approve or circulate such a leaflet, nor did we agree to the inclusion of our contact details in it, nor have we sent out or authorised any Tweets or blog postings in connection with the recent disturbances.””

Seems pretty clear they are distancing themselves from it. Also if somebody who is not authorised sends out such a message just exactly what is it that Bindmans are meant to do?

@Barry – Lol at the sarcasm (now that I’ve finally caught on).
@Angela – Who are these people who don’t understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
On the riots – sad time for Britain as it clearly shows social breakdown.
On rioters/ demonstrators having solicitor contacts beforehand – how is that different from organisations and celebrities having firms on retainers when they suspect their actions may result in some sort of legal action?

“Jim, surely the money involved comes from flogging looted watches and phones down the pub? There must be something somewhere about being paid from the proceeds of crime…., or do these people qualify for Legal Aid?”
Even if not legal aid and paid for by defendant – its not ‘proceeds of crime’ until the crime is proved (i.e. guilty verdict delivered). if your argument were correct, then theoretically they wouldn’t need a solicitor because they are already deemed guilty…

What worries me most is that some commentators who I take to be lawyers seem to think that the Rule of Law only applies to nice genteel types who can afford it – like large corporations. Get off your Magic Circle backsides and realise that the world isn’t a nice cozy place full of First Class plane travel and Aston Martins. It’s hard, dirty and vicious. Bindmans are simply providing a service as lawyers must. They have clearly distanced themselves from the ‘advertising’

If you are too stupid to realise this or read the article properly, I suggest you try another profession.